Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

Well, there's no reason why small stuff needs to behave like big stuff.  Really, we only find QM strange because we live (and were evolved to live) on the scale we do. 

The "round earth" example fits that, because on a small (human) scale the earth seems flat, and you need to be able to "get" something bigger to "get" the round earth. Nowadays most people "get" that the earth is round and how come we don't fall off. Does this mean that we're on the verge of understanding QM? That it's merely a matter of time and education until we are able to see the bigger (smaller ) picture?

But even now, the greatest minds of our age struggle with QM. I think we've got a long way to go.

[The Doctor]

I'd say 50 years after they get the basics down pat, whether that's in the past of in the future.

[Starver]

When it comes to Round Earth and QM equivalences, I see it quite a bit like that people could see that it looked round, if they were sailors[1] or had other advantageous positions[2].  But without the knowledge of gravity or some other form of "Earth sucks!" theory, there just wasn't the means to justify in the face of the 'authority' that says the whole place is flat and might not look too kindly on anyone making a big noise about it being otherwise.

(As an aside, a bit of an analogy, A long time ago, I was in a role-playing game where our group were asked by the local NPC king-type person to, for his entertainment, argue something obviously preposterous: i.e. that the world wasn't flat, but curved...  Taking the challenge with relish (it was my University's role-playing society, we were all essentially geeky in one way or another), we managed to put forward a convincing argument that it was curved... upwards, i.e. we're inside a sphere...  even explaining the horizon-effect.  Chuck enough words at it (the irony of my stating that is not lost on me!) and an argument can be made for almost anything.  Words alone don't make it true.)

But I depart a little bit.  I've no problem with QM being a good description of the world.  Much as pre-QM ideas were a good description of the world until we started to look a lot closer at things.  Waves as superposition of particles, etc, is indeed strange to our macroscopic selves, but I've got no problem with that as a "Lies To Children"[4] intermediate explanation.  The fact that QM has an apparent "spooky action at a distance" that doesn't mesh with relativity's requirement that information not exceed the speed of light[3] means that there are obvious problems with each theory within the others' realm.  As and when something arises (or develops and comes to dominate, out of the current crop of hopefuls) that encompasses all these things, then the majority of scientists who work at that level will formally deal with QM and Relativity as the Lies To Children explanations for something that they have a better explanation of, but which is beyond most people's understanding/need-to-know/willingness-to-understand.

So I'll happily (well, without undue complaint, except that I'm probably a bit rusty with it) work with the maths needed to describe superimposed states, etc, etc.  It works (FCVO...) but I just 'feel' (as close to any faith position I have) that this is an abstraction on what is really happening.

And I subscribe to the idea that's highly related to Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, insofar as at some level we will no longer have the power within our own universe to provably describe the exact nature of our own universe.  We already have Planck-limit obfuscation of the exact details and workings of the quantum (/sub-quantum?) world, which might well be the actual Gödel-limit of our universe-system, or just a precursor symptom of it if we do get the equivalent of Star Trek's "Heisenburg Compensators" at any point in our future scientific endeavours.


Which is all far too speculative, I know.  (And if I actually am right, I could never even prove I'm I'm right, thanks to that which Gödel describes...  Right? )


So, I take QM as a good explanation.  I'm not by any means saying that I don't believe it's that complicated and that its all Newtonian down there.  It's probably far more hard to understand[6].  Ditto I'm happy with the current understanding of the macroscopic Relativity (although I may have some unconventional ideas about black holes, they are just 'ideas', anyway, not something I'd say must be true...) and happy to work with roots of v-squared over c-squared, etc, if F=ma and all derived formulae aren't sufficient for a given situation.

Levels upon levels.  Wheels within wheels.  Possibly bunkum upon bunkum, I'll allow...



[1] Who could quite clearly see from the rigging that there was an 'over' component to the horizon, that ships happily travel over and back without reporting any problems, and even that the land itself retreated that way when they were going far enough away from it on clear days...

[2] Both geographical and perhaps in society, so they had time to look around, rather than tend fields, blah-de-blah...  But those whose were in top positions but had heads (or the heads of their advisers) that were stuck in books that said how the world was flat would also be excluded.

[3] (Einstein, via Tesla, et al, having also coming up with a theory that explained things (some not yet confirmed!) that previous theories couldn't or wouldn't...

[4] A phrase pinched from Jack Cohen and and Ian Stewart.  Basically it's like explaining electricity as like a flow of liquid (because it's easy to visualise) before you say "actually, it's this tiny particles called electrons" which is less so and requires at least some knowledge about the nature of atoms[5], and then later you learn that it's actually the gaps where electrons aren't that move, and then later on...  YGTI.

[5] Another "Lie To Children": It's the smallest particle.  Well, it isn't, there are Protons and Neutrons at the centre and electrons going round that like planets in a a solar system.  Well, not quite because [there are quarks and shit|the electrons form a cloud|you need to start explaining Quantum anyway]...  etc.  Each level is useful as an abstraction, even to those that know and understand levels below.  As long as they understand the limitations.

[6] Although, being more fundamental and closer to The Truth, probably a lot more simple in and of itself.  Harder to pin down, of course.

[ECrownofFire]

Or we have just reached the maximum of our understanding, and our brains are incapable of completely grasping anything deeper than this.

Yeah, I'm inclined to think that too. After all, nobody said we will ever be able to understand it(i.e.the world) completely.

Pff.  That's what computers and strong AI are for.

There's not a computer powerful enough to figure out why I was stuck in non-moving traffic today.  Sometimes I have a hard time comprehending why people feel the need to slow down and look at an accident causing miles of rubber band braking.  If only I had the omnipotent power to whip those people into the sun...

Actually...

[Andir]

Or we have just reached the maximum of our understanding, and our brains are incapable of completely grasping anything deeper than this.

Yeah, I'm inclined to think that too. After all, nobody said we will ever be able to understand it(i.e.the world) completely.

Pff.  That's what computers and strong AI are for.

There's not a computer powerful enough to figure out why I was stuck in non-moving traffic today.  Sometimes I have a hard time comprehending why people feel the need to slow down and look at an accident causing miles of rubber band braking.  If only I had the omnipotent power to whip those people into the sun...

Actually...

Yeah, I saw that... this was no phantom though.  There was an accident, and those cars were on the right shoulder of a 4 (8?) lane highway with no lane closures and I was stopping off and on in the left hand lane for about 2 miles.  There was no excuse for it... and this happens quite frequently more and more.

[Siquo]

The solution to phantom jams: Germans.

The whole stop-and-go of a jam is just because of a few impatient people, who drive fast, brake, drive fast, brake, and change lanes a lot.

I once had a jam (with mostly Germans in it) that just moved. Slowly but surely, a huge stream of cars, all moving at exactly the same speed, and having some distance to account for that one a*hole who did change lanes. It was driving as it was supposed to be.

How I long for the day that manually overriding the automatic pilot in your car becomes illegal...

[Earthquake Damage]

How I long for the day that manually overriding the automatic pilot in your car becomes illegal...

Then shouldn't cars with manual overrides be illegal?  If you allow them, then is it because there are times when it's necessary?  If it proves necessary, why is it illegal?  Do you expect the government to have the omnipresence and consistent judgment to fairly determine whether it was necessary every time it's used?  Can I be more of an ass?

[Realmfighter]

Can I be more of an ass?

ONLY IF YOU BELIEVE IN YOURSELF

[Sir Pseudonymous]

When it comes to Round Earth and QM equivalences, I see it quite a bit like that people could see that it looked round, if they were sailors[1] or had other advantageous positions[2].  But without the knowledge of gravity or some other form of "Earth sucks!" theory, there just wasn't the means to justify in the face of the 'authority' that says the whole place is flat and might not look too kindly on anyone making a big noise about it being otherwise.

[1] Who could quite clearly see from the rigging that there was an 'over' component to the horizon, that ships happily travel over and back without reporting any problems, and even that the land itself retreated that way when they were going far enough away from it on clear days...

[2] Both geographical and perhaps in society, so they had time to look around, rather than tend fields, blah-de-blah...  But those whose were in top positions but had heads (or the heads of their advisers) that were stuck in books that said how the world was flat would also be excluded.

I don't really see how this is an appropriate analogy as, at least among scholars and anyone who lived in a port (and bothered to think about it), the fact that the earth was round has been known for thousands of years (including a very close estimate of the circumference of the Earth). The idea of sailing across the Atlantic to reach China/India (for instance) was considered ridiculous not because it was believed that one would sail off the end of the Earth, but because it was known that Asia was too far away for contemporary ships to reach, since they couldn't carry enough supplies for the journey; it was merely unknown that there was another landmass in between Europe and Asia in that direction. It was rather geocentrism that was widely believed (by the vast majority of scholars and astronomers, as well as religious institutions).

[Siquo]

Then shouldn't cars with manual overrides be illegal?  If you allow them, then is it because there are times when it's necessary?  If it proves necessary, why is it illegal?  Do you expect the government to have the omnipresence and consistent judgment to fairly determine whether it was necessary every time it's used?  Can I be more of an ass?

Perhaps, Probably, Exceptions, Eventually and Probably Yes.

[Sowelu]

Can I be more of an ass?

ONLY IF YOU BELIEVE IN YOURSELF

No, don't believe in yourself.  Believe in me who believes in you!

[Starver]

When it comes to Round Earth and QM equivalences, I see it quite a bit like that people could see that it looked round, if they were sailors[1] or had other advantageous positions[2].  But without the knowledge of gravity or some other form of "Earth sucks!" theory, there just wasn't the means to justify in the face of the 'authority' that says the whole place is flat and might not look too kindly on anyone making a big noise about it being otherwise.

[1] Who could quite clearly see from the rigging that there was an 'over' component to the horizon, that ships happily travel over and back without reporting any problems, and even that the land itself retreated that way when they were going far enough away from it on clear days...

[2] Both geographical and perhaps in society, so they had time to look around, rather than tend fields, blah-de-blah...  But those whose were in top positions but had heads (or the heads of their advisers) that were stuck in books that said how the world was flat would also be excluded.

I don't really see how this is an appropriate analogy as, at least among scholars and anyone who lived in a port (and bothered to think about it), the fact that the earth was round has been known for thousands of years (including a very close estimate of the circumference of the Earth). The idea of sailing across the Atlantic to reach China/India (for instance) was considered ridiculous not because it was believed that one would sail off the end of the Earth, but because it was known that Asia was too far away for contemporary ships to reach, since they couldn't carry enough supplies for the journey; it was merely unknown that there was another landmass in between Europe and Asia in that direction. It was rather geocentrism that was widely believed (by the vast majority of scholars and astronomers, as well as religious institutions).

Not a perfect analogy, but flat-earthism had been mentioned in a "So you don't believe in QM?" context, so I ran with it.

Spoiler: This bit came out far longer than I intended.  Read only if you want to. (click to show/hide)

People who have a practical use for the knowledge of a Round Earth (as you've said) did indeed know (like I said) that was round, and probably that "falling off the edge" was either a joke along the lines of "red oil for rear lamps"/"left-handed nail scissors".  But those that read (oops, rerailing?) from the bible the whole "I can see the whole world from here!" scene and had a bad attitude towards anyone who argued otherwise made it a moot point and thus it was probably just quietly dealt with by those whose business it was to actually sail over the edge.

And, as I said, they probably didn't come up with a 'how' as to why the water didn't just slosh over the curve, if they even thought about it, until someone of the class of Newton gave a publicly-understood "the Earth sucks!" explanation.  Before that "God did it" (whoops, another rerail!) may have sufficed for anyone with the time to think about.

When certain physics questions came up that (it turns out) QM would explain, it was probably far too esoteric for the ground breaking scientists to get Galileo-moments, courtesy of any authority of the level of the church, but we know that some prominent people didn't like that explanation.  Much as these days there's scientists who are strong string theoreticians and others who are strongly opposed to that idea.  Does gravity leak out into other dimensions?  Is there, in fact, dark matter, and energy, etc?  Is there even a Higgs Boson, never mind whether stuff like gravitons, tachyons, exist, including the whole pantheon of supersymmetric particles (selectrons, squarks, setc...).  All are attempts to explain by not-yet-confirmed hypotheses various observable strangenesses within the known (and/or highly likely derived) universe.  The Alpha Constant may not be constant, or perhaps there's a different constant which is, and the so-called Alpha Constant is not as fundamental as some think and is just derived from that actual constant and comes out as variable due to the way we're (mis?-)interpreting it.

But if a theory explains a certain range of observations, it'll do until you need to poke around areas where the theory doesn't explain it well enough.  I'm not saying "The Earth Is Flat" was labelled as a viable theory, but most people who dealt with the world as flat were dealing with it at a level no bigger than the largest cathedral construction site, where it might as well have been for all the error that could have crept in due to their abstraction.  And those who sailed to China (by whatever route, and the mis-estimations of the size of the Earth have been many and varied, as well) got on with that job with more other problems than the need to calculate accurate Great Circle measurements.  Cartographers working at the continental level might well have had to make assumptions about accuracy anyway, so getting a curved surface onto a flat parchment might have been similarly low on their agendas.  Look at the Mapa Mundi.  You can see most of what the maker was getting at, but even if their overriding idea was not about a finite flat Earth, their sources of information were obviously lacking the accuracy to make the issue of Earth's curvature relevant.

People observing that on a certain day of the year, the sun shone straight down certain wells at noon, but came in at an angle to others were undoubtedly ones of many who (for various reasons) appreciated some of the details.  For a long time throughout history.  I'm sure at least one of the architects/builders of Stonehenge had an inkling about the nature of the Earth, as well as the heavens.  The bigger Pyramids were big enough so that, if the builders' fabled accuracy (flooding and then draining water out of the building site to get a truly 'flat' base, by some accounts, and then the precision of the stone-masonry for what they built on top) is true, and there weren't 'ad-hoc' alterations made to the structure, then they must have anticipated the 'errors' that would creep in.

Darnit, TMI.

TL;DR; - Those who worked at large enough geographic scales dealt with it, but others didn't have to, and there was a (probably ignored by the first group) set of people in 'authority' who just took it as gospel (NPI!) that it was flat and we know that some nay-sayers were inconvenienced for conveying views more closely related to reality.  (And the size of the Earth, as a globe, has been grossly miscalculated over the years, anyway.  In both directions.)

Not really disagreeing with you in any significant way.  I suspect it's just the depth of the interpretation, and some minor issues where I might well be out-of-date on some of the historic understanding.  It's a broad church.

[Micro102]

Yes, it is back 

Saw an interesting story. A kid asked a priest why he knew what God wanted and the priest said "Because he spoke to me". Then it went on to "How do you know he is incomprehensible if he is incomprehensible?". Which I saw as a stalemate.

So what would you guys say if a priest told you that God talked to him?

[Ř]

Yes, it is back 

Jesus Christ (*rimshot*) this thread is huge. TLDR. I think a new thread would have been justified.

[MrWiggles]

Yes, it is back 

Saw an interesting story. A kid asked a priest why he knew what God wanted and the priest said "Because he spoke to me". Then it went on to "How do you know he is incomprehensible if he is incomprehensible?". Which I saw as a stalemate.

So what would you guys say if a priest told you that God talked to him?

There is nothing to say for multiple reasons. First and foremost, anecdotal evidence is weak sauce. Second, there is no verification process. If we grant, that yes, something spoke to the priest, we can't confirm what spoke to him. All we could say, is that something that the Priest believed to be God, or was titling itself as God spoke to him.

Yes, it is back 

Jesus Christ (*rimshot*) this thread is huge. TLDR. I think a new thread would have been justified.

There is no real point in reading the back log. Its the same like 15 points back and forth.